IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs December 1, 2009

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CORTERRIUS WORTHY

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 08-06051 James M. Lammey, Jr., Judge

No. W2009-00761-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 9, 2010

The defendant, Corterrius Worthy, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal

Court. The defendant entered an open guilty plea to one count of robbery, a Class C felony.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s application for judicial diversion and

sentenced the defendant to a term of three years. The court also denied the defendant’s request for

probation and ordered that the sentence be served in the ShelbyCounty Workhouse. On appeal, the

defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion and failing to grant probation.

Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.

WOODALL and J.C. MCLIN, JJ., joined.

Robert Wilson Jones, District Public Defender, and Barry W. Kuhn, Assistant Public

Defender, for the appellant, Corterrius Worthy.

Robert E. Cooper, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Counsel;

William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Lora Fowler, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. 

OPINION

Factual Background

The underlying facts of the case, as recited at the guilty plea hearing, are as follows:

[H]ad the case gone to trial, the State’s proof would be that the offense

occurred here in ShelbyCounty, Tennessee. It happened on May 10th, 2008. On that
-2-

day[,] officers of the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office responded to a robbery call at

6980 Holmes. 

A witness[,] one Ms. Ann Gregory[,] would have testified that she just

walked out of the [Walgreens] to her vehicle with her purse on her right shoulder.

She was trying to get in the car when she felt a tug on her shoulder and the purse was

taken from her while her back was turned. She turned around and observed a man

get into a green vehicle and leave the scene eastbound on Holmes.

She was able to - - witness was able to provide a description of the suspect

in the car, the tag number on the car. The car - - officers ran the tag number and

found it registered to [the defendant]. Officers located [the defendant] and he

matched the description of the suspect in the armed robbery. He was advised of his

rights, offered the opportunity to give a statement. He did agree to give a statement,

however, he denied doing the robbery but admitted he was the only person that drove

that particular car that day. 

Additionally, a witness positively identified him from a photo lineup as the

person who took Ms. Gregory’s purse on May 10th, 2008. . . . 

The defendant was subsequently indicted by a Shelby County grand jury for one count of

robbery. He later entered an open guilty plea to the charged offense and filed an application for

judicial diversion. Following the trial court’s acceptance of the plea, a sentencing hearing was held.

At the hearing, the State introduced the presentence report into evidence. The report

indicated that the defendant was twenty-one years old at the time ofsentencing and had no children.

The report further indicated that the defendant had graduated from high school and completed some

college. Additionally, the report reflected that the defendant had held various jobs through a

temporary agency, as well as working at FedEx. Finally, the report indicated no prior convictions

as an adult, although it noted three prior instances of juvenile misconduct. Additionally, the

defendant gave a statement that he had no drug or alcohol problems. 

The defendant was the only witness to testify at the hearing. He indicated that he believed

he was entitled to diversion because he was “a respectable guy” with plans to join the navy. He

acknowledged that he was unemployed at the time of sentencing and further asserted that he had

complied with all terms of his release on bond imposed by the court. On cross-examination, the

defendant denied all knowledge of the crime, indicating that it was committed by someone else and

that he only pled guilty because it was in his best interest to do so. He testified that a friend living

with him had access to his car keys on the day of the crime, and the defendant insisted that he had

informed both the police and trial counsel of this fact. The defendant had no explanation as to why

his then girlfriend informed police that he was not at home at the time of the crime, and he testified

at the sentencing hearing that, in fact, he was at home when the crime was committed. 
-3-

After hearing the evidence presented, the trial court denied the defendant’s application for

judicial diversion and imposed a sentence of three years. The court further denied the defendant’s

request for probation and ordered that the sentence be served in the workhouse. This timely appeal

followed. 

Analysis

 On appeal, the defendant raises two challenges to the sentence imposed by the trial court. When

an accused challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, this court has a duty to

conduct a de novo review of the sentence with a presumption that the determinations made by the

trial court are correct. T.C.A. § 40-35-401(d) (2006); State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169

(Tenn.1991). This presumption is “conditioned upon the affirmative showing in the record that the

trial court considered the sentencing principles and all relevant facts and circumstances.” Ashby, 823

S.W.2d at 169. The burden is on the defendant to show that the sentencing was improper. T.C.A.

§40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts. 

When conducting a de novo review of the sentence, this court must consider: (a) the

evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (b) the presentence report; (c) the

principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (d) the nature and

characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (e) any statutory mitigating or enhancement factors;

(f) any statement that the defendant made on his own behalf; and (g) the potential or lack of potential

for rehabilitation or treatment. T.C.A. §§ 40-35-102, -103, -210 (2006); Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 168.

Furthermore, we emphasize that facts relevant to sentencingmust be established by a preponderance

of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Winfield, 23 S.W.3d 279, 283 (Tenn.

2000) (citing State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93, 96 (Tenn. 1997)).

I. Judicial Diversion

First, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial

diversion. Specifically, he contends that the court erred by relying solely on the circumstances of

the offense, which he further asserts were not established on the record. “Judicial diversion is a

legislative largess whereby a defendant adjudicated guilty may, upon successful completion of a

diversion program, receive an expungement from all ‘official records’ any recordation relating to

‘arrest, indictment or information, trial, finding of guilty, and dismissal and discharge’ pursuant to

the diversion statute.” State v. Schindler, 986 S.W.2d 209, 211 (Tenn. 1999). A defendant is

eligible for judicial diversion when he or she is found guilty or pleads guilty to a Class C, D, or E

felonyand has not previously been convicted of a felony or a Class A misdemeanor. T.C.A. § 40-35-

313(a)(1)(B)(I) (2006). With these requirements in mind, it is undisputed that the defendant is

statutorily eligible for judicial diversion. However, eligibility under the diversion statute does not

ensure the grant of diversion. 

 The decision of whether to grant a request for judicial diversion lies within the sound

discretion of the trial court, and this court will not disturb that decision on appeal absent an abuse
-4-

of discretion. State v. Robinson, 139 S.W.3d 661, 665 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). When a defendant

challenges the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion, we may not revisit the issue if the record

contains any substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s decision. State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d

332, 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).

In deciding whether to grant judicial diversion, the trial court must consider the following factors:

(1) the accused’s amenability to correction; (2) the circumstances of the offense; (3) the accused’s

criminal record; (4) the accused’s social history; (5) the status of the accused’s physical and mental

health; (6) the deterrence value to the accused as well as others; and (7) whether judicial diversion

will serve the ends of justice. State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1998); Parker, 932 S.W.2d at 958. Additionally, the trial court may consider the defendant’s

“attitude, behavior since arrest, prior record, home environment, current drug usage, emotional

stability, past employment, general reputation, marital stability, family responsibility and attitude of

law enforcement.” State v. Washington, 866 S.W.2d 950, 951 (Tenn. 1993). 

The record must indicate that the court has weighed all of the factors in reaching its

determination. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d at 229. If the trial court denies a request for judicial

diversion, it should state in the record “the specific reasons for its determinations.” Parker, 932

S.W.2d at 958-59. If the trial court “based its determinations on only some of the factors, it must

explain why these factors outweigh the others.” Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d at 229. In State

v. Curry, a pretrial diversion case, our supreme court held that the circumstances of the offense and

the need for deterrence, alone, may justify a denial of diversion but only if all of the relevant factors

have been considered as well. 988 S.W.2d 153, 158 (Tenn. 1999). “Judicial diversion is similar in

purpose to pretrial diversion and is to be imposed within the discretion of the trial court subject only

to the same constraints applicable to prosecutors in applying pretrial diversion under [Tennessee

Code Annotated section] 40-15-105.” State v. Anderson, 857 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1992). 

In denying the defendant’s request for diversion, the trial court made the following specific

findings of fact: 

Well, under [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 40-35-313 and State v.

Parker, there are certain factors I have to discuss regardless of whetherI give judicial

diversion or not. There are a number of these: the accused’s amenability to

correction[;] circumstance[s] of the offense[;] the accused’s criminal record[;] the

status of his physical and mental health[;] the deterrent value to the accused as well

as others[; and] whether judicial diversion will serve the interest of the public as well

as the accused.

Among other things - the defendant’s attitude. I guess I’ll start with the

defendant’s attitude.

He comes across as extremely arrogant and cocky. Defense counsel indicated

that he was concerned that maybe he should have prepped him a little bit better and
-5-

let him be more humble, but I don’t - I don’t believe that would have been a good

thing. I mean, I would like to know what they’re really like, and you would think that

someone would not have to be told to be humble when they are in a situation like

this; but he does come across as extremely- extremely- just his air - defiant and in

your face sort of - that’s the feeling I get by - so, his attitude doesn’t seem to be really

good. 

I mean, of course he could have gone to trial and still been eligible to ask for

judicial diversion.

I just think that - he maintains that he did not do this, but the story that he

gives just doesn’t seem to add up, especially in light of the fact that he was positively

identified; and that’s why I asked that this sheriff’s office photo spread be entered in

because he was positively identified; and I see nothing suggestive about this photo

spread. He was positively identified after his car tag - his car is seen leaving the

scene of the robbery. So, I don’t believe what he had to say on the witness stand. 

His behavior, since arrest, has been good. He has attempted to - it says he

wants to get in the navy, which is good.

He did do what the daily reporting center told him to do. So, that’s a plus.

His home environment - he’s had a few contacts with juvenile court but

nothing real major that I would - that I could say - 

He does - he presents- he seems like a very intelligent young man.

No history, that I can see, of any type of drug usage.

His emotional stability seems to be okay, Isuppose; although I think that the

way that he answers some of the questions, it was evidence to me he was very

intelligent - cunning, I guess is a good word to use.

His part employment - exactly what that was . . . But he had attended some

college. Paramount [S]taffings. Select [S]taffing. Position cancelled on both.

Of course, going to an agency, I think is a dead end. I don’t think that was a

wise choice going to, but at least he was attempting to get some work.

The family responsibilities - it doesn’t seem like there was anything there

against him. I think it’s good that he doesn’t have illegitimate kids all over the place,

which is a rarity these days.
-6-

There’s no - nothing- attitude to law enforcement has not been addressed -

there’s nothing in the record.

Nor was there anything in the record to show how pervasive this is in the

community to show deterrent value to the accused as well as others.

Social history, as I said, it doesn’t seem too bad.

Criminal record, obviously is something I have to consider. He has a couple

of contacts. He said he’s never been in trouble, but I think what he meant is he’s

never been convicted of anything. But even so, the juvenile record isn’t bad.

The problem I am having in granting judicial diversion is the circumstances

of the offense. I know of one case, because I was involved in it, where a little old

lady was knocked down exactly the same way - got her purse; and now that young

man is serving life in prison because the woman hit her head and died. And the

young man who did it is serving life in prison for murder in the perpetration of a

felony; and that very well could have been the case here. That’s the problem I’m

having with this.

First of all, I believe that the defendant is the one who perpetrated this crime;

and so, you know, it’s a very, very serious - and I think attacking a little old lady to

take her purse shows a very, very depraved heart. And as much as he appears to be

the type of person that - by looking at the young man, he is dressed well; he’s well

spoken. When you look behind it - when you look at the fact of this - when you try

to imagine or think of a person who would do this sort of thing - how - well, what

type of person would do something like this? - the type of person that would do

something like this, I don’t think is the type of person who is deserving of diversion.

I think there is some case law that says the accused’s amenability to correction may

outweigh all the others.

But when you think of - when you think of someone who commits a crime

like this, what type of person that would be. I mean, I guess it’s one thing that could

be walking by a vehicle, seeing a wallet on the seat - money sticking out of the wallet

and just, you know, one time - you know, a guy, - “I need $50 - there it is - take it,”

that can be understandable. But for someone to watch a little old lady and wait and

approach and pull her down or knock her down to the ground, that takes an

extraordinary lack of feeling, and I don’t think that anyone who would commit

something like that is amenable to correction.

So, in looking at all of these, I think the circumstances of the offense far, far

outweigh any of the others; and because of that, looking at the interest of the public,
-7-

I think it outweighs the interest of the accused in [getting] judicial diversion. So, I’m

going to show judicial diversion denied. 

First, we address the defendant’s contention that the “circumstances of the offense” were not

established by the record. He specifically challenges that the record failed to establish that the victim

was a seventy-seven-year-old “little, old lady” or that she was “knocked down.” We reject the

defendant’s argument. While it is true that this specific information is not contained in the recitation

of the facts stated at the guilty plea hearing, it is contained within the record. The presentence report,

which was admitted without objection by the defendant, indicates that a witness observed the

defendant “approach the victim[,] pushing her to the ground[,] and stealing her purse.” Moreover,

the State, in response to a question from the court, indicated that the victim was seventy-seven years

old. While we agree with the defendant that arguments of counsel are not substantive evidence, this

statement was not offered in the course of arguments but, rather, as a response to a question. Cf.

State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 257 (Tenn. 1993) (statements of counsel offered during argument

are not substantive evidence). Moreover, the defendant made no objection to the statement at the

time; thus, any argument regarding its admission is waived. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a). 

In support of his argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying diversion, the

defendant relies upon: (1) the positive factors enumerated by the trial court; (2) that an admission

of guilt is not a prerequisite to diversion; and (3) that the court made no finding with regard to the

defendant’s amenability to correction. According to the defendant, the trial court improperly denied

diversion in this case based solely upon the circumstances of the offense. We disagree. 

In very extensive findings, the trial court noted its consideration of the required factors and

the weight which the court felt they were entitled to. In fact, the court acknowledged that many of

the factors did weigh in the defendant’s favor. However, the court was very explicit in its findings

that the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s attitude, and his lack of truthfulness carried

more weight and supported the denial. 

Moreover, we disagree with the defendant’s assertion that the trial court required an

admission of guilt as a prerequisite to a granting of diversion. The defendant is correct that case law

is clear that such an admission is not a prerequisite. State v. Lewis, 978 S.W.2d 558, 567 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1997). However, our reading of the trial court’s findings do not indicate that the court

required such. Rather, our reading indicates that the court was considering the defendant’s denials

in terms of credibility, a factor which is properly considered. Anderson, 857 S.W.2d at 572

(upholding denial of judicial diversion on the basis of untruthfulness); see also State v. Dowdy, 894

S.W.2d 301, 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (holding consideration of a defendant’s candor while

testifying was probative of prospects for rehabilitation).

We must also reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court failed to consider the

defendant’s amenability to correction. While the State concedes that the court made no explicit

finding with regard to this issue, we disagree. In its findings, the trial court clearly stated that it

believed someone who commits this type of depraved crime is not amenable to correction.
-8-

Moreover, as noted by the State, even absent this statement, the record would amply support the

finding. As noted, dishonesty and lack of candor are indicators of a lack of amenability to correction.

Dowdy, 894 S.W.2d at 305. The trial court’s statement on the record is explicit in that he found the

defendant was dishonest and not a credible witness. 

Thus, based upon the foregoing, we reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court

denied diversion solely on the basis of the circumstances of the offense. The court considered all

the required factors and addressed their respective weights. The court determined that the

circumstances of the offense, along with the defendant’s amenability to correction, attitude, and lack

of honesty with the court outweighed the positive factors in favor of diversion. We find nothing in

the record which indicates that the decision was an abuse of discretion. 

II. Probation

Next, the defendant contends that the trial court also committed error by denying him a

probationary sentence and ordering that he serve the sentence in the workhouse. Again, the

defendant relies upon the argument that the trial court improperly denied probation based solely upon

the circumstances of the offense. 

 A defendant who does not possess a criminal history showing a clear disregard for society’s

laws and morals, who has not failed past rehabilitation efforts, and who “is an especially mitigated

or standard offender convicted of a Class C, D or E felony, should be considered as a favorable

candidate for alternative sentencing options in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” T.C.A. §

40-35-102(6). The following considerations provide guidance regarding what constitutes “evidence

to the contrary:” 

(A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who

has a long history of criminal conduct;

(B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense

or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to

others likely to commit similar offenses; or

(C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been

applied unsuccessfully to the defendant. . . .

T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1); see also State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tenn. 2000). Additionally, the

principles of sentencing reflect that the sentence should be no greater than that deserved for the

offense committed and should be the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for

which the sentence is imposed. T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2), (4). The court should also consider the

defendant’s potential forrehabilitation or treatment in determining the appropriate sentence. T.C.A.

§ 40-35-103(5). 
-9-

A defendant is eligible for probation if the actual sentence imposed upon the defendant is ten

years or less and the offense for which the defendant is sentenced is not specifically excluded by

statute. T.C.A. § 40-35-303(a) (2006). The trial court shall automatically consider probation as a

sentencing alternative for eligible defendants; however, the defendant bears the burden of proving

his or her suitability for probation. T.C.A. § 40-35-303(b). No criminal defendant is automatically

entitled to probation as a matter of law. T.C.A. § 40-35-303(b), Sentencing Comm’n Cmts; State

v. Davis, 940 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tenn. 1997). Rather, the defendant must demonstrate that probation

would serve the ends of justice and the best interests of both the public and the defendant. State v.

Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). In determining whether to grant probation,

the court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense; the defendant’s criminal record;

his or her background and social history; his or her present condition, both physical and mental; the

deterrent effect on the defendant; and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation or treatment. Id.

With regard to probation, the trial court stated as follows:

Now, we’ve talked about probation. Unfortunately, for the defendant, I

believe that - I believe that situations like this, it would seriously depreciate the

seriousness of the offense to grant probation. I just can’t see it. I mean, it is a

depraved heart - - someone that would do something like this just doesn’t deserve,

in my opinion - it’s about like stealing from a widow. I don’t think that there’s any

place in our judicial system for someone who would steal from a widow or steal from

an old lady - especially knocking them to the ground and taking their purse.

If you think of that act - and I’m just imagining what it would be like to be a

little old lady with a purse. You know, a purse has everything that belongs to

someone in it; and it’s a sacred place, really. There are things in there that belong

just to that person, and stealing this off a counter where she is standing looking at

some items would be bad enough; but physically grabbing it and forcing this person

to the ground to take it, I don’t believe warrants probation, either. I think the

seriousness of the offense - well, I believe it would - it would depreciate the

seriousness of the offense to give probation as well. 

There is no dispute that the defendant was eligible for a sentence of probation based upon

his receiving a three-year sentence. However, the trial court found that the defendant had failed to

establish his suitability. As noted, the defendant contends that the court improperly denied probation

based solely upon the “seriousness of the offense.” We agree that in order for probation to be

properly denied based solely upon the nature offense, the criminal act, as committed, must be

“especially violent, horrifying, shocking, reprehensible, offensive, or otherwise of an excessive or

exaggerated degree.” State v. Cleavor, 691 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Tenn. 1985). Initially, we are unable

to conclude that the decision to deny probation was based solely on the seriousness of the offense.

While we agree that this was a primary concern, the court also clearly weighed the defendant’s

amenability to correction and lack of candor, as we concluded in our review of judicial diversion.

Regardless, we give credence to the trial court’s ruling that the offense was of an egregious nature.
-10-

The defendant physically assaulted an elderly woman in a parking lot, knocking her to the ground,

in order to steal her purse. As noted by the trial court, the defendant’s crime amounted to a showing

of “a very, very depraved heart” and showed “an extraordinary lack of feeling.” From these

statements, it is apparent that the trial court found the defendant’s actions to be reprehensible. As

such, we conclude that the record before us supports the denial of probation. The defendant has

simply failed to carry his burden of establishing that probation would “subserve the ends of justice

and the best interests of both the public and the defendant.” See State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602,

607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). 

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed.

___________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE